I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”. Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis. To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later), Obama echoed Biden’s stance. A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story. In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair. This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life. Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being. Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself. I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”. Why is it a gaffe? Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president? Biden spoke his mind. He was not offensive. It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something. He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself. Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment. Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work. If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good. Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans, passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned. K, well, you snooze, you lose. A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives. Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment? Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well. Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more. Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment. The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country. All’s well that ends well, right? Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time. 5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader. They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized. In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”. Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem. He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way. He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident. The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats. It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw. It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion. The email was entitled “Dark Incident”. This email was a dark incident. Way to be unprofessional. The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information. The organization does not need to do that. The story speaks for itself. Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite. Society is always in flux. We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions. Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off. The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens. It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe. In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?” And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal. We all should.